128. Biragao v.

The Philippine Truth Commision

G.R. No. 192935
December 7, 2010
FACTS:
This is a case brought to the Supreme Court to question the Constitutionality of The Philippine
Truth Commission. There were two case filed in the Supreme Court; G.R. No. 192935, a special
civil action for prohibition instituted by petitioner Louis Biraogo (Biraogo) in his capacity as a
citizen and taxpayer, and G.R. No. 193036, is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition
filed by petitioners Edcel C. Lagman, Rodolfo B. Albano Jr., Simeon A. Datumanong, and
Orlando B. Fua, Sr. (petitioners-legislators) as incumbent members of the House of
Representatives. Both cases were consolidated by the by the Supreme Court to G.R. No. 192935.
The Philippine Truth Commission was created by Executive Order no. 1 issued by President
Benigno Aquino to investigate graft and corruption committed by the Arroyo administration.
ISSUE:
WON Executive Order No. 1 violates the equal protection clause.
HELD:
Yes. The Executive Order No.1 violates the equal protection clause. They contend that it does
not apply equally to all members of the same class such that the intent of singling out the
"previous administration" as its sole object makes the PTC an "adventure in partisan hostility."
Thus, in order to be accorded with validity, the commission must also cover reports of graft and
corruption in virtually all administrations previous to that of former President Arroyo.
The equal protection clause is aimed at all official state actions, not just those of the legislature.
Its inhibitions cover all the departments of the government including the political and executive
departments, and extend to all actions of a state denying equal protection of the laws, through
whatever agency or whatever guise is taken. Applying these precepts to this case, Executive
Order No. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause. The clear mandate
of the envisioned truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth "concerning the
reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration" only. The intent to
single out the previous administration is plain, patent and manifest. Mention of it has been made
in at least three portions of the questioned executive order.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. Executive Order No. 1 is hereby declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it is violative of the equal protection clause of the
Constitution.